Profile Picture

Wolf’s Notes

… about faith, life, technology, etc.

A Banana Republic?

2020-12-13 Wolf Paul

In a recent Facebook discussion I had expressed concern at the number of Trump supporters who are unwilling to accept court decisions which reject election fraud claims. They feel that these judges have betrayed Trump and the nation. After the Supreme Court refused to hear the lawsuit filed by Texas against four other states, President Trump himself echoed these sentiments, with a number of tweets, including this one:

In reply to my comment one person commented, “It’s about the voters who need to see a honest, transparent election,” and posted a link to a blog post from mid-2017, Transparency Is Solution to Shameful Lack of Security For US Voting Systems Revealed by NSA Leak .

Another person asserted that the election was rigged because a Biden administration would be “evil, a replay of Obama, it would cater to the Chinese, pay Iran, kill more unborn, USA and her legal citizens be damned.”

Here is my take on all this:

There are basically three views of this election:

One, that it basically worked just fine. Some mistakes may have occurred which are not surprising considering the scale of the country and the election, but they did not materially alter the result, and there wasn’t widespread fraud, and

Two, that the whole election was largely rigged, with fraudulently manipulated equipment and software whose manufacturers are part or wholly owned by the Chinese government, votes transferred to German servers to be altered, all in order to steal the election from Trump, and all with the collusion of state officials, even Republican ones.

Three, the election was rigged because of the outcome. The fact that this person views Biden with disdain and expects decisions and policies which s/he considers immoral and bad for the country and its citizens makes this a rigged election. It really has nothing to do with how many people actually voted for Trump or for Biden, the outcome is what makes it rigged. For this reason, it doesn’t matter what the courts say about lack of evidence of fraud, the outcome is bad, so it’s rigged. This view is so far out there that I am not going to say much about it, except that it re-defines what “rigged election” means — this view of “rigged election” is totally subjective and not subject to scrutiny by the courts. There is simply no basis on which one can rationally debate this view.

Of course, Trump has been incessantly preaching the second viewpoint since long before Nov 3 — but he didn’t do anything about it: no federal investigation, no court cases, nothing. The blog linked above about potential security flaws in the EViD software proves my point: it is from 2017, but apparently nothing was done about the report it cites or the concerns it raises.

The whole point of Trump’s badmouthing of the election seemed to be to make sure that in case he lost the election, his supporters would refuse to accept the result. He also nominated lots of conservative judges and justices, obviously with the expectation that in a post-election showdown they will support him.

So the election happens; he loses, and it all plays out exactly as planned, except that by and large the courts, even the ones chaired by judges nominated by Trump and earlier GOP presidents, reject his claims of rigging, fraud, and manipulation. The Supreme Court will not even hear a case brought by Texas’ Attorney General to invalidate the results in four swing states.

And Trump’s supporters are SO fired up by his incessant tweets that many come to the conclusion that the courts, and especially the GOP nominated judges and justices, have betrayed Trump and thus the country.

This is NOT about an honest, transparent election: if Trump had won they would not have cared one bit about this – they didn’t in 2016. It is about the conviction Trump has drummed into their heads that the only way he could loose is if the election were rigged.

That message coming from Trump for most of a year prior to Nov 3 (and continuing since then) is the hallmark of a sore loser, and while a sore loser is annoying in sports and games it is outright dangerous in the politics of what is still the most powerful nation on earth.

Americans are fond to say, “We’re not a democracy, we’re a republic!” — true, but it’s quickly turning into a banana republic.

Menschwerdung / Becoming Human

2020-12-08 Wolf Paul

Kenneth Tanner:

(English original is here)

„Menschwerdung heißt, für das Leben der Welt zu sterben, und vom Tode auferweckt zu werden zu einem Leben ohne Ende in dieser Welt, auch über den Tod hinaus. (more…)

White Privilege?

2020-12-06 Wolf Paul

The UK’s venerable children’s charity Barnardo’s is in hot water over a guidance it published online (sorry, this might be behind a paywall) telling parents and others caring for children to teach them about “white privilege.”

A group of conservative MPs has complained to the charity itself as well as to the Charity Commission about this “move into political activism.” Earlier, the Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch had told MPs that teaching children about “white privilege and their inherited racial guilt” could be breaking the law.

A Barnardo’s spokesman denied that the charity is promoting critical race theory and said,

“… we certainly don’t believe Britain is racist or that anyone should feel guilt about being from a particular background. We do know that in our country in 2020 being non-white creates particular and additional needs – indeed the blog itself was written based on what children in our services told us they wanted to convey. To be ‘colour blind’ would be to fundamentally fail in our duty to address the needs of these children.”

So, what to make of this? Here is my take on it:

If you are not promoting a particular theory or political ideology you should not be using its buzzwords.

Apart from being closely associated with critical race theory, the term “white privilege” is misleading and sends the discussion about racial inequality in the wrong direction.

A privilege, as opposed to a right or entitlement, has the connotation of an unearned benefit. If having adequate housing, a job, and generally feeling safe are described as “white privilege,” the implication is that you are not entitled to these things, and that therefore the solution would be to take them away from you in order to create equality.

Other things that are described as aspects of “white privilege”, such as the preponderance of white teachers, white police officers, judges, and jurors, are, in a country like the UK which is still predominantly white, not at all related to being white or black; if you go to, say, Nigeria or Zimbabwe, even as a white person you are unlikely to encounter white teachers, police officers, judges, and jurors. Also, our energy should be turned towards encouraging everyone not to commit crimes in the first place rather than worrying about the ethnicity of the police officers when a crime has been committed.

And when Barnardo’s writes that it is “white privilege” to have a managerial job, it ignores the fact that only a small percentage of all working people, regardless of ethnicity, have managerial jobs.

In reality, equality is fostered when we work to ensure that minorities of every kind enjoy adequate housing, a job with a living wage, and a safe environment — for these are not (or should not be) privileges, but human rights.

I agree with the Barnardo’s spokesman when he says,

“We believe those who nurture the next generation of children should be supported in understanding racial inequality in all its complexity, so that they in turn can find appropriate ways of discussing this with children – much in the same way other big parenting conversations happen already. In a year of so much upheaval and debate about race,  shying away from the subject doesn’t mend division.”

I agree we ought not to shy away from the subject of racial inequality. But rather than appropriating a term so closely linked to a controversial academic and political theory, with all its misleading connotations, it would be far better to frame the discussion in terms of extending the human rights many people enjoy to those who, for whatever reason, are currently denied them.

Kurz(e) Kritik: Lassen wir die Kirche im Dorf!

2020-12-04 Wolf Paul

Ich gebe zu, ich habe bei der letzten Nationalratswahl die ÖVP gewählt, obwohl ich mit der Haltung von (damals ex-)Bundeskanzler Kurz in der Flüchtlingsfrage gar nicht einverstanden bin und ich als fast gebürtiger1 Christlich-Sozialer insgesamt von der türkisen “Neuen ÖVP” schwer enttäuscht bin. Aber ich habe mir vor der Wahl alle möglichen Koalitions-Konstellationen angesehen, und die türkis-grüne Variante schien mir am wahrscheinlichsten und auch, von meinen Werten her, am wenigsten problematisch. Dies nur, um klar zu machen, daß ich wahrlich kein Kurz-Fan bin.

Was jedoch die Kritik an Kurz’ Aussagen zu von Reise-Rückkehrern eingeschleppten Infektionen angeht, finde ich die Kritik überzogen und unfair. Es ist unsinnig, jede Aussage unter dem Aspekt der Identitätspolitik2 zu betrachten, d. h. mit der Frage, welcher unterdrückten oder diskriminierten Minderheit der Seitenhieb wohl gegolten hat. 

Ich habe jetzt keinen Zugriff auf die Statistiken, aber daß Infektionen vor allem von Reise-Rückkehrern eingeschleppt werden, die auf Familien-, Verwandten-, oder auch Freundesbesuch waren, und weniger von solchen, die einfach einen Badeurlaub mit Unterbringung in einem Hotel oder auf einem Campingplatz verbracht haben, ergibt sich aus der Dynamik von Besuchen bei Menschen, die man gut kennt und schätzt und wahrscheinlich schon lange nicht mehr gesehen hat. Man wird einfach viel mehr Zeit mit diesen Menschen verbringen, in weniger distanzierten Verhältnissen, als mit wildfremden Leuten im Hotel oder auf dem Campingplatz. 

Vor dieser Tatsache die Augen zu verschließen, und die Aussagen des Bundeskanzlers auf die Herkunft oder den Migrationshintergrund der angesprochenen Reise-Rückkehrer zu beziehen, ist unlogisch und unsinnig. Politische Korrektheit ist, insgesamt gesehen, ein Irrweg.

Mir ist schon klar, daß die Opposition fast nicht anders kann, als an jeder Aussage von Kurz und anderen Regierungsmitgliedern etwas auszusetzen; vom Koalitionspartner hätte ich mir besseres erwartet, und vor allem von Vizekanzler Kogler, der mir immer sehr vernünftig und pragmatisch erschienen ist. Aber die Grünen sind eine Alternativpartei, mit “Wokeness“3 in ihren Genen, und das zählt scheinbar mehr als Vernunft.

  1. Mein Vater war vor allem in jüngeren Jahren sehr aktiv bei den christlichen Gewerkschaftern und hat Zeit seines Lebens ÖVP gewählt. Auch die Familie meiner Mutter waren überzeugte “Schwarze”. Ich bin sozusagen in einem tiefschwarzen Haushalt aufgewachsen. ↩
  2. Der Begriff Identitätspolitik (englisch identity politics) ist eine Zuschreibung für politisches Handeln, bei dem Bedürfnisse einer spezifischen Gruppe von Menschen im Mittelpunkt stehen. Angestrebt werden höhere Anerkennung der Gruppe, die Verbesserung ihrer gesellschaftlichen Position und die Stärkung ihres Einflusses. Um die Mitglieder einer solchen Gruppe zu identifizieren, werden kulturelle, ethnische, soziale oder sexuelle Merkmale verwendet. Menschen, die diese Eigenschaften haben, werden zu der Gruppe gezählt und häufig als homogen betrachtet. Menschen, denen diese Eigenschaften fehlen, werden ausgeschlossen. →Wikipedia ↩
  3. Wokeness oder woke (engl. ,erwacht‘, ,wach‘, Aussprache: ［ˈwoʊk］) ist ein seit den 2000er Jahren verwendeter Begriff, der ein erhöhtes Bewusstsein für Rassismus und gesellschaftliche Privilegien umschreibt. Aktivistisches oder militantes Eintreten für den Schutz von Minderheiten kann damit einhergehen. Er leitet sich von dem englischen Verb ,to wake‘ (,wecken‘, ,aufwachen‘) ab, das in diesem Kontext ein Erwachen angesichts sozialer Ungerechtigkeiten beschreibt. →Wikipedia ↩

An encouraging judgment

2020-12-03 Wolf Paul

On Ian Paul‘s blog “Psephizo“, Dr Julie Maxwell writes:

You may have seen the recent media coverage of the Judicial review brought by Keira Bell and Susan Evans against the Tavistock and perhaps you wonder what on earth this is all about. This was a landmark judgement that will have world wide repercussions as well as implications for churches and society in general.

Read the full article here.

Dr Maxwell is a part-time Community Paediatrician and who also works for Lovewise, a Christian charity which provides relationships and sex education from a Christian perspective, one day a week. She is married and has three children, and is involved in leading youth work at her local church. Her personal and professional experience led her to became increasingly interested and concerned at the rapid growth in the numbers of children and young people presenting with gender identity issues and the way this was being managed.

 

This illustrates how perverse our society has become

2020-12-02 Wolf Paul

Normally, I don’t give a hoot for what goes on at places like Eton College, the venerable English publicA public school in England and Wales is a fee-charging endowed school originally for older boys which was public in the sense of being open to pupils irrespective of locality, denomination or paternal trade or profession. What other countries call a public school is called a state school in England and Wales. (i.e. private) school, but there is currently a controversy involving Eton which to me illustrates how perverse our society has become. (more…)

Keith Getty: The importance of WHAT we sing

Wolf Paul

Keith Getty, one of the authors of “In Christ Alone”, talks about the importance of singing intelligent songs about God and the world He created, and I fully agree with him.

To many of our worship songs today appeal primarily to our emotions, and while that is not bad, it is not enough: it will not sustain us when our emotions change, as they inevitably will in the course of every day life.

So many songs articulate primarily how we feel about God and what we will do for Him. That’s nice but we need songs that articulate the truths of God’s holiness, our own sinfulness and need, of His love for all of us and His merciful and compassionate provision for our need, and of His might and power and ultimate victory.

A Song of Encouragement Ein Lied der Ermutingung

2020-12-01 Wolf Paul

1) Gott wird dich tragen, drum sei nicht verzagt,
treu ist der Hüter, der über dich wacht.
Stark ist der Arm, der dein Leben gelenkt,
Gott ist ein Gott, der der Seinen gedenkt.		 1 God will take care of you, be not afraid;
He is your safeguard thro’ sunshine and shade;
Tenderly watching and keeping His own,
He will not leave you to wander alone.
Gott wird dich tragen mit Händen so lind.
Er hat dich lieb wie ein Vater sein Kind.
Das steht dem Glauben wie Felsen so fest:
Gott ist ein Gott, der uns nimmer verläßt.		 God will take care of you still to the end;
Oh, what a Father, Redeemer and Friend!
Jesus will answer whenever you call,
He will take care of you, trust Him for all.
2) Gott wird dich tragen, wenn einsam du gehst;
Gott wird dich hören, wenn weinend du flehst.
Glaub’ es, wie bang dir der Morger auch graut,
Gott ist ein Gott, dem man kühnlich vertraut.
Gott wird dich …		 2 God will take care of you, thro’ all the day,
Shielding your footsteps, directing your way;
He is your Shepherd, Protector and Guide,
Leading His children where still waters glide.
God will take care …
3) Gott wird dich tragen durch Tage der Not;
Gott wird dir beistehn in Alter und Tod.
Fest steht das Wort, ob auch alles zerstäubt,
Gott ist ein Gott, der in Ewigkeit bleibt.
Gott wird dich …		 3 God will take care of you, long as you live,
Granting you blessings no other can give;
He will take care of you when time is past,
Safe to His kingdom will bring you at last.
God will take care …
Text: Günter Balders Lyrics: Fanny Crosby

Video: Orchester der Gemeinde Gottes, Eppingen  / Orchestra of the Church of God in Eppingen, Germany